ERNesbitt:I agree to an extent. Conservative "fairness" is trying to treat everyone equal, while liberal "fairness" is trying to make everyone equal. Which view you take depends on your perception of the role of government.

There are no liberals or conservatives by any meaningful definition of the terms. There's just people grasping for power and money and holding beauty pageants to see who gets to be the monkey and who gets to be the football. You know, the peasantry.

Joe boater:Should have just made a hand written change to the document. Which anyone could have done and signed the blasted paper. But nooooo this crusader wanted to be superman.

Read the comments. That's exactly what he wanted to do--but they wouldn't permit it.

Rostin:I'm a US citizen, and I very recently got married to someone currently in the US on a student visa. We are about to begin the green card process. My wife thinks it's no big deal, but I've heard so many immigration horror stories and dealt with bureaucracies enough in general that I'm a hair's breadth away from shelling out the $1000-$2000 that a lawyer would charge, just to reduce the chances of things going wrong. It's a lot of money, but the consequences of failure seem very high. The most maddening thing about it is knowing that even though we have done nothing wrong, we could still get dicked over because of an innocent mistake combined with some stupid policy that makes no sense.

I've been though it (as the US citizen) sans lawyer. Things turned out ok in the end but not because they wanted it that way. I don't know for sure what happened but it looks like our first "interviewer" took a dislike to my wife and sabotaged her file somehow. (Fortunately, we moved into the area of another office that was much more reasonable.) They're also a total nightmare to deal with. Back then they had some interesting ways of dealing with phone congestion, such as only leaving you on hold for a few minutes before disconnecting you.

AccuJack:I'd personally have corrected the form and signed the corrected version. That changes the situation from "won't sign, therefore seize" to "our process doesn't allow form corrections, what do we do?" in which case they'd either officially re-issue the form with the correction or (more likely) ignore it because it's too much trouble to deal with. The big advantage consumers have in dealing with most TSA and customs folks is that they're government employees, and therefore a high number of them are lazy as hell.

That's exactly what he did--and they responded by seizing.

Aidan:I'm only half-joking there. The forms themselves don't necessarily change, but the order in which you're supposed to file them does. Also take pictures of the pair of you in various places now, if you don't have any. Try to commingle your assets (shared bank accounts, shared address, bills that clearly come either to her name at your address or both your names, etc). Keep track of all your taxes, check stubs from your jobs, etc in one place so you can more easily start gathering the right documents when it comes time to start instead of saying "Oh crap. I didn't think you'd want my phone bill from 3 years ago!"

Second this, he's not joking. It took IIRC three go-rounds with an affidavit of support (fortunately, not requiring a new fee each time) because supposedly the income claimed appears nowhere on the tax return. I finally got it accepted by spending the better part of a page showing the math of how the number had been right all along. Never mind that the tax return showed a higher number. Never mind that we showed enough assets that it would have been approved with an income of $0.

Braindeath:I hate rich people as much as the next person but this is bullshiat. He said in the comments that she wouldn't let him change the form, and she imo withheld information from her boss so she could take the boat.

Bullshiat.

I also hope that people who have guns and this kind of authority aren't making 9 dollar an hour or the theft will be through the roof. [I'm assuming it is.]

It occurs to me that what might be going on here is that she gets some sort of bonus for seizures, never mind if they are legit or not.

The My Little Pony Killer:Not according to his blog. According to his blog, it was in American dollars instead of Canadian. It's the exact same value, just not in the specific terms he had paid, but rather in terms that the DHS was willing to deal with. Guy's a pedantic asshole without a boat.

$1 Canadian != $1 USA. Putting the wrong currency on the correct number makes it wrong.

graeylin:According to the US Government, you must take a series of physical tests with a doctor to make sure you aren't bringing in diseases, but at no step along the way, does anyone check to make sure it's actually "you" taking the physical and giving blood. Just send in a healthy ringer.

And they're not going to ban you if something terrible comes up, anyway. The point of the physical is to catch the things that can be treated and make you get them treated. I don't recall about ID by now, that was nearly a quarter century ago.

MsIndy:I agree: get a lawyer. She may have violated the terms of her student visa by marrying you if the wedding happened here. I ran into similar trouble when I married my (foreign) husband while he was here on a tourist visa (we had applied for a fiancee visa, but it hadn't been granted by the time we married). That was technically 'fraud' and had a knock-on effect that resulted in a deportation order for him (that we narrowly avoided by engaging a lawyer). Paying a lawyer to double-check your work will be money well-spent.

I'm surprised he even got a tourist visa with a fiancee visa pending. Coming here to get married on a tourist visa is most certainly a no-no. However, it's based on intent, if you come here as a genuine tourist, then fall in love and get married it's not a no-no. I'm no lawyer and most of my dealings with them are long ago but I don't see that he's in the wrong.

jpk_ks:ERNesbitt: ciberido:If you really want a simple paradigm that somewhat explains how liberals and conservatives think, try this one: Both liberals and conservatives care deeply about fairness, but the problem is, they see fairness differently. For liberals, fairness is about EQUALITY. "It's not fair," your hypothetical liberal might say, "that this guy here dines on caviar every day, while this women over here struggles to afford milk and bread." For conservatives, fairness is about PROPORTIONALITY. "It's not fair," your hypothetical conservative might say, "that this guy only works part-time 20 hours a week, and this woman puts in 80-hour weeks, but then the government takes money away from this hard-working woman and gives it to this lazy bum who didn't earn it."

I agree to an extent. Conservative "fairness" is trying to treat everyone equal, while liberal "fairness" is trying to make everyone equal. Which view you take depends on your perception of the role of government.

I would endorse the ERNesbitt's statement - it's that whole 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome' question. Admittedly, I'm biased as someone who tends towards the conservative side.

And again, yes, this is the issue from the Conservatives' point of view. The Conservative take on it is it's a question of 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome'. Of course, once you frame it that way, the Conservative way does some both more fair and more realistic.

You must understand, of course, that not everyone agrees with the way you framed it.

Three possibilities here, none of which include this once new boat owner getting his boat back.1. Boat is placed in a government auction.2. Boat is transferred to a federal marine division.3. Boat is transferred to a military moral office and rented out to DOD personnel

mongbiohazard:One of the rules of the form is that the information must be accurate.The information was not accurate.

As with any quantitative measure, there's a certain amount of imprecision involved in describing how much a boat is worth. The customs agents seem to have acknowledged that, but the would-be importer took it too literally.

Let's say the value of the boat was US$199K, but the paperwork stated it was CA$199K. At the exchange rate currently given by Google, that's equivalent to US$194,659.01.

Does Customs really care whether it's closer to $195K or $200K? Probably not. Hell, the exchange rate will be different tomorrow and throw all the numbers off anyway, so it's as close as it needs to be dammit.

It's not like there was confusion between US dollars and Mexican pesos resulting an a tenfold difference here.

Macular Degenerate:So if he had just signed the government created form and "overlooked" the error, he would have his boat and no one would have been the wiser for it. Instead, he wanted to make a point about how stupid and farked up the government is, and as a result of his foolishness he lost his boat.

IMHO, serves him right for trying to be a dick and make a point at some low level bureaucrat. In his shoes, I'd have just signed the damned form and kept my mouth shut

...and anytime in the future, someone could notice the incorrect info, and arrest you for perjury for lying on a government form.

Ace Rimmer:He is importing a boat.There are rules about importing a boat.One of those rules is he sign a form.He refused to sign the form because it had incorrect information on it, and by signing, he was swearing this incorrect information was actually correct.

Until we stop blowharding for, winking at, smirking over and tee hee-ing about the people who "get away with sh*t because they can", none of this on any level - from this minor clusterf*ck to the tattered edges of the constitution - is ever going to get any better. Nor should it. If you buy the con that by kissing up to douchebags, that one day, YOU might get to be the nudge and wink douchebag with the say so and the do-as-you-please nameplate on your lapel, and you win, you deserve to be abused.

Ace Rimmer:mongbiohazard: Ace Rimmer: untaken_name: Ace Rimmer: Any financial loss he is incurring now is completely of his own making.

So he made the rules? Interesting. You don't know what most words mean, do you? "Completely" is a pretty simple one. Look it up.

He is importing a boat.There are rules about importing a boat.One of those rules is he sign a form.He refused to sign the form.

Completely of his own making.

You seem to have left some things out:

One of the rules of the form is that the information must be accurate.The information was not accurate.The customs official would not update the information to be accurate.Changing the info would have been a trivial matter for the customs official.She decided to seize his boat instead and laugh in his face.

Completely not of his own making.

The form wants to know the price of the boat

It is supposed to be in US$

The price accidentally got recorded in CA$

The price is still recorded on the form

The error was insignificant and the officer was apparently satisfied that there was no reason not to release the boat

Then he decided to completely make his own reason for not getting his boat.

Who says it's insignificant ? When dealing with any level of bureaucracy the most apparently trivial discrepancies have a nasty way of causing trouble down the line. At any rate, when importing goods, having the wrong price on the accompanying documents is not a trivial matter.

It was not she who was asked to sign a document attesting that the inaccurate information it contained was accurate. Demanding that a private citizen sign a document she knew contained inaccurate information was at the very least a serious breach on her part.

capt.hollister:Ace Rimmer: mongbiohazard: Ace Rimmer: untaken_name: Ace Rimmer: Any financial loss he is incurring now is completely of his own making.

So he made the rules? Interesting. You don't know what most words mean, do you? "Completely" is a pretty simple one. Look it up.

He is importing a boat.There are rules about importing a boat.One of those rules is he sign a form.He refused to sign the form.

Completely of his own making.

You seem to have left some things out:

One of the rules of the form is that the information must be accurate.The information was not accurate.The customs official would not update the information to be accurate.Changing the info would have been a trivial matter for the customs official.She decided to seize his boat instead and laugh in his face.

Completely not of his own making.

The form wants to know the price of the boat

It is supposed to be in US$

The price accidentally got recorded in CA$

The price is still recorded on the form

The error was insignificant and the officer was apparently satisfied that there was no reason not to release the boat

Then he decided to completely make his own reason for not getting his boat.

Who says it's insignificant ? When dealing with any level of bureaucracy the most apparently trivial discrepancies have a nasty way of causing trouble down the line. At any rate, when importing goods, having the wrong price on the accompanying documents is not a trivial matter.

It was not she who was asked to sign a document attesting that the inaccurate information it contained was accurate. Demanding that a private citizen sign a document she knew contained inaccurate information was at the very least a serious breach on her part.

If he is filing an entry with 489 different items and it isn't obvious what currency his values are in then it is significant.

If it is a one item entry where it is obvious the price was recorded in Canadian dollars it is insignificant.

If any one every questions it all he has to do is show his invoice and it will be obvious the amount is correct. Nobody is sitting in jail in the USA for failing to do a currency conversion on a Customs form.

Ace Rimmer:If he is filing an entry with 489 different items and it isn't obvious what currency his values are in then it is significant.

If it is a one item entry where it is obvious the price was recorded in Canadian dollars it is insignificant.

If any one every questions it all he has to do is show his invoice and it will be obvious the amount is correct. Nobody is sitting in jail in the USA for failing to do a currency conversion on a Customs form.

Just shut the fark up.

People have been fined and threatened with jail for minor form issues-look at gun dealers and how the ATF was treating them if they allowed a person to abbreviate a street, state or country on the 4473. (The most recent forms finally allow postal abbreviations.)

What seems minor to you, me, or another person may be a felony if the government wants to enforce it.

syberpud:The guy acted like a douche, but he had a point and the officer could be seen as violating authority.

Maybe he was rude to the agent, maybe he wasn't ... we'll never know for sure, but it's sounds like she got irritated at his behavior because he didn't genuflect to her authority. That's what it boils down to ... she felt disrespected that this guy wouldn't just do as he was told, so pretty much decided to show him who was boss.

The Snow Dog:Now, in this particular situation: you're probably right, (I probably would've signed) but if authorities ask you to do something stupid--think long and hard about it and consider all the angles.

Definitely - although sometimes you don't have a lot of options. I had a friend who was in a similar situation as the passenger of a driver who was being arrested for DWI. They asked her to step out of the car - then arrested her for "public intoxication". IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you cannot refuse a cop's order to step out of the car, so you are pretty much screwed either way.

pedrop357:Ace Rimmer: If he is filing an entry with 489 different items and it isn't obvious what currency his values are in then it is significant.

If it is a one item entry where it is obvious the price was recorded in Canadian dollars it is insignificant.

If any one every questions it all he has to do is show his invoice and it will be obvious the amount is correct. Nobody is sitting in jail in the USA for failing to do a currency conversion on a Customs form.

Just shut the fark up.

People have been fined and threatened with jail for minor form issues-look at gun dealers and how the ATF was treating them if they allowed a person to abbreviate a street, state or country on the 4473. (The most recent forms finally allow postal abbreviations.)

What seems minor to you, me, or another person may be a felony if the government wants to enforce it.

I'd hate to see you as a notary.

When did ATF get involved in this?

The only number on a Customs form that you better not ever, and I mean ever, fark up is the Harmonized Tariff number.

ciberido:jpk_ks: ERNesbitt: ciberido:If you really want a simple paradigm that somewhat explains how liberals and conservatives think, try this one: Both liberals and conservatives care deeply about fairness, but the problem is, they see fairness differently. For liberals, fairness is about EQUALITY. "It's not fair," your hypothetical liberal might say, "that this guy here dines on caviar every day, while this women over here struggles to afford milk and bread." For conservatives, fairness is about PROPORTIONALITY. "It's not fair," your hypothetical conservative might say, "that this guy only works part-time 20 hours a week, and this woman puts in 80-hour weeks, but then the government takes money away from this hard-working woman and gives it to this lazy bum who didn't earn it."

I agree to an extent. Conservative "fairness" is trying to treat everyone equal, while liberal "fairness" is trying to make everyone equal. Which view you take depends on your perception of the role of government.

I would endorse the ERNesbitt's statement - it's that whole 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome' question. Admittedly, I'm biased as someone who tends towards the conservative side.

And again, yes, this is the issue from the Conservatives' point of view. The Conservative take on it is it's a question of 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome'. Of course, once you frame it that way, the Conservative way does some both more fair and more realistic.

You must understand, of course, that not everyone agrees with the way you framed it.

I do understand that my way of framing it is truly reductive reasoning on both sides of the equation, absolutely. As I said, I'm biased. I've yet to find anyone who disagrees with having 'equality of opportunity' for all in life - regardless of ideological association. It's the common conservative indictment of the left using the 'equality of outcome' statement - an old fashioned troll attempt, maybe, but not intended in this case.

xria:Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.

This is the part that galls me, perhaps the most. Putting seizure authority in the hands of resentful idots who should rightfully be bagging groceries is a bad idea, and telling them they're some kind of Super Patriots protecting America from terrorists is worse.

Have you considered that the point of view of the potential boat owner might be biased, and he might be trying to paint the DHS in a more negative light?

I find it entirely believable. Have you ever seen any police reality type shows - the kind like COPS or Border Wars on NatGeo?

I remember one Border Wars episode in particular. A dog hit on a car crossing the border and the agent pulls it aside and starts ripping it apart - literally ripping it apart, not just disassembling it. She gleefully rips into it and practically has an orgasm when she finds drugs. And the after work the agents all get together to celebrate.

Their whole reason for existing is not to stop drugs. It is to bust people and seize property. If we somehow won the drug war and no more drugs were ever smuggled across the border they wouldn't feel a sense of victory. They would slip into a deep depression and probably commit suicide.

Happy Hours:xria: Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.

This is the part that galls me, perhaps the most. Putting seizure authority in the hands of resentful idots who should rightfully be bagging groceries is a bad idea, and telling them they're some kind of Super Patriots protecting America from terrorists is worse.

Have you considered that the point of view of the potential boat owner might be biased, and he might be trying to paint the DHS in a more negative light?

I find it entirely believable. Have you ever seen any police reality type shows - the kind like COPS or Border Wars on NatGeo?

I remember one Border Wars episode in particular. A dog hit on a car crossing the border and the agent pulls it aside and starts ripping it apart - literally ripping it apart, not just disassembling it. She gleefully rips into it and practically has an orgasm when she finds drugs. And the after work the agents all get together to celebrate.

Their whole reason for existing is not to stop drugs. It is to bust people and seize property. If we somehow won the drug war and no more drugs were ever smuggled across the border they wouldn't feel a sense of victory. They would slip into a deep depression and probably commit suicide.

Well there is a difference between Customs at the boarder and Customs when you're doing trade.

Well, to be fair, the calumet river was the same way back in the 50s and 60s. The water and the surrounding beaches have cleaned up great, and the past two summers you could see 10ft or more to the bottom maybe 100yards offshore. Other than the low lake levels, the water itself is in great shape.

Well, to be fair, the calumet river was the same way back in the 50s and 60s. The water and the surrounding beaches have cleaned up great, and the past two summers you could see 10ft or more to the bottom maybe 100yards offshore. Other than the low lake levels, the water itself is in great shape.

True but the Calumet river doesn't run through downtown Chicago like the cuyahoga does to cleveland.